On 12/01/2013 05:43 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> The attached patch destroys ACLs in the reverse order of creation to
> avoid destruction segfaults during reconfiguration.
> Done as trunk r13165.
Sorry, that was not enough. I somehow missed an obvious use case that
the committed fix does not cove
On 2013-12-11 10:46, Tsantilas Christos wrote:
Hi all,
currently we have the following situation for sslcrtvalidator_children
configuration option, which is may confusing people:
1) The testing sslcrtvalidator helper supports concurrency
2) The default concurrency if the sslcrtvalidator_childr
Hi all,
currently we have the following situation for sslcrtvalidator_children
configuration option, which is may confusing people:
1) The testing sslcrtvalidator helper supports concurrency
2) The default concurrency if the sslcrtvalidator_children is not set,
is concurrency=0
3) The default s
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Alex Rousskov
wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 04:13 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> Two requests for additional scope:
>
>> * can we place this is a separate src/parse/ library please?
>> - we have other generic parse code the deserves to all be bundled up
>> together instea
On 12/09/2013 04:13 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Two requests for additional scope:
> * can we place this is a separate src/parse/ library please?
> - we have other generic parse code the deserves to all be bundled up
> together instead of spread out. Might as well start that collection
> process
Now I just had small hole in time to look.
The mentioned logic seems pretty reasonable to me.
Eliezer
On 23/11/13 13:02, Amos Jeffries wrote:
entryData.tag = label;
@@ -1603,6 +1605,18 @@
{
ACLFilledChecklist*checklist = Filled(static_cast(data));
checklist->extacl_entry
On 12/09/2013 10:46 PM, Francesco Chemolli wrote:
> My suggestion is to have CharacterSet be a SBuf and
> rely on them, at least for now. In any case having them be a SBuf
> promotes better interface decoupling and abstraction.
CharacterSet is a "set of characters", which is semantically very
dif
On 10 December 2013 19:13, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> The problem with comparing input strings to a SBuf of characters is that
> parsing a input of length N againt charset of size M takes O(N*M) time.
Huh? There are linear time parsers with PEGs. Or maybe I don't
understand one of your preconditions
I'd need to check.
To align the others to our IRC discussion: I'm fine with the design
Alex and you are suggesting.
My only suggestions are to have remaining() return SBuf instead of
const SBuf &, and to have a few predefined CharacterSets.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 10/12/2013 9:38 p.m., Robert Collins wrote:
> On 10 December 2013 19:13, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> The problem with comparing input strings to a SBuf of characters is that
>> parsing a input of length N againt charset of size M takes O(N*M) time.
>
> Huh? There are linear time parsers with PE
10 matches
Mail list logo